He performed pioneering work taking a type of adult stem cell from the nose and showing how it can be be used for spinal repair. A polish paraplegic, Darek Fidyka, regained the ability to walk following surgery in 2014 using this research findings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darek_Fidyka
When I ran track in college, I somehow developed focal cartilage defects in both knees. This brought my running career to a halt and made walking extremely painful for about a year. In an attempt to fix this, I had a type of surgery known as the OATS procedure performed. This is where the surgeon takes a plug of undamaged articular cartilage from a low load bearing region of the knee and swaps it with the damaged cartilage. Walking is mostly pain-free for me now, but it still hurts too much if I attempt to run.
As though one cartilage injury weren't enough, I somewhat stupidly decided to take up weight lifting after I couldn't run anymore and attempted to set down a barbell that was way too heavy for me. In doing so, I triggered a mild lower lumbar disc herniation. So now I have two permanent injuries. Luckily, neither injury is very severe, so some days I don't even notice the pain while other days it approaches mildly annoying "background noise".
These types of cartilage injuries are common, and arthritis is even more common. But the issue with cartilage is that once it's damaged, it doesn't heal on its own because cartilage has no vascular system. You can break all the bones you want and eventually they will heal, but damaged hyaline cartilage will not. The best that your body can do is to produce "low-quality" fibrocartilage in place of the damaged hyaline cartilage.
Fortunately, there's been a lot of research over the last decade on using mesenchymal stem cells (taken from your own bone marrow) to regrow true hyaline cartilage as opposed to fibrocartilage. The stem cells have actually been shown to differentiate into hyaline cartilage. For me, this has the potential to permanently alleviate both knee and back pain. Moving this research away from clinical trials seems to be taking forever for some reason though...
It's really cool technology. I can't wait to see where it goes in the next few years!
Speaking anecdotally, I've had 4 wrist surgeries over the past 5 years (coming up on my fifth next week). I've never once heard of the stem-cell injection treatment, despite having 3 surgeons and 9+ other consulting doctors. Did your doctor give you any papers to describe the procedures that made his knee "all better now"?
That's because stem cell therapy is not generally approved for use yet. It is still in the research stage. There was one company that did it for a while in Colorado, but nobody could really figure out whether they were legit or a scam, and the FDA ended up putting a halt on their stem cell injections.
The technology isn't "hard" per say, nor is it patented. You can find doctors willing to do "prolotherapy" procedures for you today.
The problem arises with trying to study it. I assume that they do phase 1 trials for therapies like this, which means that they have to find healthy individuals willing to get bone marrow removed, and then get that injected into joint spaces. Not many people want to sign up for that study, unfortunately.
I still do them, and try to do them with proper form, but it's always in the back of my mind that I might hurt my back due to the load.
Could you give me more detail on how you hurt your back? How heavy of a load was it? Was it during a deadlift?
The key to deadlifts is good form and not letting your back arch at all. I would recommend getting an expert trainer or an advanced lifter to help you practice your form if you are worried about it. It's worth the time to prevent an injury.
Bench press at any significant weight just flat-out isn't safe without a spotter.
You should always use good form and always have respect for the weights (don't get cocky), but maybe have a bit more respect for the squat :P
DLs are complicated, but you'll see a lot more uniformity when you take your advice from people who are strong themselves.
> The stem cell procedure Kris received is part of a Phase 1/2a clinical trial that is evaluating the safety and efficacy of escalating doses of AST-OPC1 cells developed by Fremont, California-based Asterias Biotherapeutics. AST-OPC1 cells are made from embryonic stem cells by carefully converting them into oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs), which are cells found in the brain and spinal cord that support the healthy functioning of nerve cells. In previous laboratory studies, AST-OPC1 was shown to produce neurotrophic factors, stimulate vascularization and induce remyelination of denuded axons. All are critical factors in the survival, regrowth and conduction of nerve impulses through axons at the injury site, according to Edward D. Wirth III, MD, PhD, chief medical director of Asterias and lead investigator of the study, dubbed “SCiStar.”
I certainly hope they listen, but I fear they won't. People opposed to embryonic stem cell research based upon religious beliefs aren't going to suddenly ignore what they believe to be instructions from their particular God, even if it has enormous benefits for society. I hope that Trump is more reasonable than that, but the hard-line pro-life stance he recently took through executive order doesn't make me optimistic that this kind of research will continue in the US during the next four years.
I continually find it depressing, distracting, and unuseful how quick some are to immediately attribute everything to overt politics. Why some submissions catch on when has so many variables. We're quick to see patterns, amplified by our own biases. Other than skywriting, I'm pretty confident that clouds aren't shaped to be animals or faces. The data for submissions is available via a couple APIs. If you want to ascribe politics as playing a role in this post making the top page now, you can try to back it up with some actual evidence and make your claim substantial.
So this was not an attempt to "atttibute everything to overt politics". Embryonic stem cells, however, are an overtly political issue in the US.
You seem to be exempt from this rule, however:
> why mention it at all other than to muddy the waters by injecting additional politicization to the HN community?
Do you see how you were ascribing unfounded and unproven intentions to someone else for their comment? Your claim that "obviously, they must have done it to muddy the waters" is the perfect example of precisely what you complain about.
There's no argument to "win". After my second comment, I responded to your question. As for "getting the last word in", I only do so to refute the idea that I said you were uncivil. You're right that this is far off-topic now, and likewise I won't respond further.
Having said that, I have a hard time taking any anti-abortion group seriously (whether religious or not) which does not actually have an official position on rape.
What possible non-religious argument could there be made to force a woman to carry to term (and care for) the child of their rapist?
First off, if a compromise can be found, that could solve the problem instantly - for example, if instead of abortion, a fetus could be removed and implanted safely in another woman, or in a laboratory, and brought to term, and there was a legal apparatus in place to ensure the child received care, that could eliminate the "killing" aspect of an abortion while preventing a woman from being forced to keep a rape-induced pregnancy to term.
That doesn't exist yet though, so, lemme try this, though I feel very dirty doing so:
If abortion is murder, then there's no legal justification in carrying it out because one is a victim of a crime, even if the abortion is a "solution" to one of the long-term effects of that crime (the rape). Just as one is not allowed to steal to replace stolen goods, one should not be allowed to "murder" an unborn child in response to a rape.
Well, you're not wrong, it's a pretty hard argument to make without bringing religion in.
There is also the religious assertion that in its present state, a zygote is a human being, yet, say, the biological matter that is removed from the body in a woman's period is not. I am not aware of an argument that does not hinge on the zygote being empowered by a magical soul.
Giving the 'undifferentiated mass of cells is clearly a human being' argument even a slight push very quickly devolves into absurdity.
Some animals have a phenomenon called parthenogenesis which allows an unfertilized egg to develop into a living organism. This does not naturally happen in humans. (And I doubt it happens unnaturally.)
So why again should humans be punished when it happens all the time anyway "by design"?
In that case, pro-lifers should have no issues with a pregnant woman asking her doctor to remove her placenta - as long as they don't touch the zygote.
Feel free to present non-religious arguments that contradict the claim.
Human life deserves protection. Human life starts at some point in time. Saying human life starts at birth (when the child leaves the womb), makes no sense. There is nothing unique about leaving the womb that infers humanity. There is nothing different between killing at newborn and killing a baby still in the womb who is past-due. Location doesn't infer something is a life or not.
So we need to find a better indication of when a human life begins. One could argue that if a child could live outside the womb, then it is a human life. Currently children commonly survive being born 26 weeks premature (3 months before being normally born). Again, killing a premature baby is no different than killing it in the womb. It's the same life.
Other believe that human life starts before that. Some believe that once the self-sustaining process of forming a baby starts (fertilization), then it's human life.
I'm not arguing for one or the other. However, I do understand why some people hold those beliefs.
How about if we consider that she should not be forced to feed and carry a parasite against her will. It is risky, regularly including death and disfigurement. People love to talk about the right to life when they are referring to an innocent zygote but suddenly everything changes if the mother's rights are brought into it.
This position in no way denies that rape is gravely immoral. It simply recognizes that the child is not responsible for the crimes of his father. The injustice of rape does not justify the additional injustice of abandoning or killing one's own child.
I think most people have no difficulty accepting this argument at least with respect to born children. Nobody would argue that infanticide, for example, is an appropriate response to rape. But there's no reason why the same logic doesn't apply before birth as well.
Yet the implicit argument here is that the injustice of rape DOES justify the additional injustice of forced pregnancy upon the victim. Pregnancy involves a profound set of changes to the body, not all of them temporary. I find it incredibly unjust that people are willing to argue that the rights of a handful of cells that will eventually become a human outweigh the rights of an inarguably human woman whose body was forcibly violated, by way of causing a second, 9-months-long forced violation of her right to control her own body. A concrete reminder of the rape that she cannot ignore because it's literally inside her and growing every day. It's despicable.
This is not to mention the lesser injustice of failing to provide her with any assistance during the pregnancy--she will need to consume more calories, will eventually find it difficult or impossible to perform her work duties until the child is born, etc. Where is that assistance provided for in all this legislation?
And for that matter, where are the appeals to the duty of caring for one's children when an adult with young kids is carted off to prison? Clearly there are circumstances in which that duty is superceded by some set of societal concerns. Why is conception by rape not one of them while some crime committed by a parent is?
they had a number of programs for getting rid of unwanted individuals and actually not only forced people but also did public (IIRC) outreach to sell the idea to doctors and parents of severly disabled or otherwise unwanted kids.
(Long time since last I read about this but I think "aktion t4" and "Tiergartenstraße" is the thing to search for if anyone is interested.)
"One of those things is not like the other, one of those things..."
Not donating bone marrow requires doing nothing. Having an abortion require an active procedure.
True, but simply not relevant to any point I made. No metaphor is perfect, but the point here is that your control over your own body trumps another right to life. You wouldn't allow the government to forcibly take your bone marrow to save a life, and that's no different than being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against your will in regards to the point of bodily autonomy. Another persons right to life ends when it depends on someone else's body to live. The other person has a right to not consent to use their body against their will.
I think you need to refine that stance.
As a parent, I certainly don't have control over my own body. If I fail to provide the necessities of life for my child, I will go to jail and my kid will be taken from me. The gov't can (and will) force me to do certain things with my body.
The whole case is on shaky legal ground without you having to take a stance on it!
The real issue is that Congress has not wanted to try to push this issue no matter which side has control because it is so divisive. Since the harms to the women from leaving a patchwork system of laws in place are real, that just leaves the courts to fill in the vacuum as far as setting a national policy goes.
This is primarily the reason it hasn't been overruled, and its been close in times past! The "precedent" hasn't been in place that long as far as case law goes.
Check out a few of the dissenting opinions
"Life begins at conception" is primarily a political construct.
"The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception". From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.""
For the modern policy a search of the Vatican's excellent web server is probably the best source http://gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=abortion&btnG=Search+on&s...
See "Declaration on procured abortion, 18 November 1974," it can be thankfully found using your search:
"Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion" [(c. 133 – c. 190 AD) he was a Father of the Church, another author quoted is Tertullian c. 155 – c. 240 AD, moreover, Synod of Elvira, the fourth century, and on and on through the centuries...]
"In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault."
To repeat: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."
Only if you really didn't read what I typed. There is a history and there were different opinions in the church. Read the history of the Middle Ages and quickening.
"The Venerable Bede" "c. 725, upheld the 40-day distinction, prescribing a one-year penance for abortion before the 40th day" "After 40 days the penance was 71/2 years, the same as for homicide."
"English common law: Starting with Leges Henrici Primi, around 1115, abortion was treated as a misdemeanour prior to 'quickening', accruing a penalty of 3 years' penance, or as a 'quasi homicide' after quickening."
"Pope Gregory XIV,"  "pronounced that abortion before 'hominization' should not be subject to ecclesiastical penalties that were any stricter than civil penalties"
Etc. It supports again the Vatican's text which I've cited: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."
If I've missed something and you have a counterexample I'd like to see it. Thanks.
"Question 4. Is it permissible to give a mother in extreme illness medicine to expel a fetus? Reply. Firstly, it is certain that it is not permissible for a mother outside of danger of death to take medicine for expelling even an inanimate fetus, since directly impeding the life of a human being is a grave sin, and a still graver one if the fetus is animate. It is certain, secondly, that it is not permissible for a mother even in danger of death to take medicine for expelling an ensouled fetus directly, since this would be procuring the child's death directly."
This quote of de Ligorio is on the Wikipedia page I've already posted here, in my first answer to which you replied. It still supports what Vatican wrote and I cited: "the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion."
"you are correct for the modern church, but there is a history..."
which I understood that you mean that there was a time in history when the Church didn't "oppose all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus," contrary to what it does as "the modern church." But going with you through the names you gave, there is no proof for such a claim. The Church always opposed and considered it "illicit" (which supports Vatican claims in its 1974 text).
If you agreed with my citations then I don't understand why you replied in a manner like I had used some wrong information?
If you agree that the Church did oppose (or considered "illicit") abortion from the conception through all the time of its existence (independently of different opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul) which is what Vatican claims and I quoted here more times, then we both agree. Moreover, my reply was to refute the statement "'life begins at conception' is primarily a political construct" with the proof that the Church was always against abortion starting from conception, that is, it can't be seen differently than other Church decisions like "what should constitute the Bible" and "is Jesus both of human and god nature." Which was never considered politics but religion. Thank you.
> "'life begins at conception' is primarily a political construct"
I didn't say that, I never said that, and I don't know where you got that from.
The Church opposes abortion using the same language and reasoning as they were using in opposition to birth control.
In addition, the Catholic Church has been very clear that this opposition does NOT rely on whether a fetus qualifies as life, human or ensouled and so sidesteps that whole issue.
So, we are back to "life begins at conception" being a political slogan, not a religious one.
I don't see how you can disprove it without the citations. The "all caps" words don't matter, the citations do.
> In relation to elective abortion, Pope John Paul II wrote about ensoulment in his 1995 encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae that:
> Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine of condemning all direct abortions has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.
> While the Church has always condemned abortion, changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led their stated reasons for such condemnation, and the classification in canon law of the sin of abortion, to change over time.
Please note that Pope John Paul II is very clear that the two issues are separate.
Go take it up with the Pope.
"Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine of condemning all direct abortions has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors."
Your claim it's a "political concept" so how is a consistent condemnation by the Church during its whole existence of 2000 years a "political concept"? I understood your claim like it was something invented for the last few election cycles, and made because of the contemporary politics. And it's the opposite, it's the Church doctrine that through the 2000 years condemned abortion, in spite of the lives of the mothers involved.
To be just "a political concept" it would have to be a period where the Church did the opposite, which it never did?
Moreover, how is supporting the doctrine on the Father of the Church from the second century, as in my quotation, "political"?
Is for you then the doctrine of Christ being both human and divine, which was established later than in the second century, also political? The trinity, established in the fourth century, political? The selection of which books are part of the Bible, political?
If the Church selected what is a part of the Bible and what is not, and it did, you can't even claim "it's political because it isn't in the Bible" since it's the Church which decided what the Bible is going to be, so your approach would make the Bible just "a political concept" too. Finally, the Church itself (any Church) is "a political concept." The faith, too.
I, not being a believer, confirm that they are all human inventions. But all that is what is traditionally called, understood and lived as "religion" not "politics."
OK. It may not go over well, but I'll make an appeal for tolerance and better characterization of the issues here.
Hypocrites and monsters aside, people don't just make up the god they want to have, at least not consciously. It's not like people say, "Hey, this guy has a cool beard and I like embryos, too! How do I get baptized? Now I win all my stem cell arguments, right?" That is, religious people don't go shopping for their God any more than LGBTQ people go shopping for their orientations.
Thinking that people take their prejudices and work backwards from there is, at a minimum, misunderstanding another philosophy and culture. I think it's rational to understand other ways of thinking, even if I disagree.
And please don't conflate the basic humanity of LGBTQ people with the ideologies of people who consistently try to rob it from them. I grew up in a conservative Christian part of the Midwest and was routinely beaten and threatened by your run of the mill Christians for "seeming gay." What they did to actual gay people was even worse.
Of course people use religion to justify their prejudices - there's almost no reading of human history that would suggest otherwise. You can toss around some No True Scottsman nonsense about how that doesn't reflect the true values of Christianity, but until mainstream American Christianity walks away from all its hypocrisy and monstrosity, it's a distinction without a difference.
I haven't been beaten for seeming effeminate, but I have been ridiculed and bullied for the same reasons. I don't decide to find which demographics about the bullies are salient (some were latino, some were athletes, are either of those fair game?) to form prejudices around.
More importantly, you misunderstood my core point:
> Except in America, people do shop around for religions.
I agree, but whether people shop or not, the existence of God is a factual question. It's either true or not. Same goes for a particular moral framework. Either it's true or not. We are all making our best bets on those dimensions. It's important not to judge, hate, outgroup, closet, ostracize, or despise because we happened to weigh available evidence and experiences differently.
In this specific case (to stay on topic), it's fair to criticize the science of whether embryos count as people. It's fair to discuss, philosophically, the benefits and drawbacks of using embryos in research. It's fair, again, to discuss whether we want corporate industries involved in embryo production to improve health outcomes.
I think we need better empathy and reasoning if we're going to act like bringing God into existence was a choice people made some day and could just as easily unmake. That's where there are very strong parallels with other justice issues like the treatment of people based on sexual orientation, immigration status, marital status, or mental health conditions.
Or to put it in a stronger business-context, the money to be made here in the US will have been squandered by politics.
Because while there is a moral argument here, it's been thoroughly coopted by politicians using it to gain/keep power.
I'm sure any paralyzed person would easily take a $300 flight to Canada for the surgery.
The only risk is that the US has the highest amount of human scientific capital.
But much like the EPA thing that turned out to be overblown (according to multiple EPA reps who said the memo was routine and that Obama did much the same, without drawing the subsequent outrage) I'm going to wait until legitimate threats to stem cell research are made before I'm concerned.
So you're right, but it's still an issue until we can solve the misinformation problem.
They just aren't too keen on spending money on the good of mankind however.
In Australia we are fairly lucky in this regard, our government is 'mostly' good, for some value of mostly at least. I'm not saying it couldn't be more efficient but definitely more efficient than research institutions needing to market to the broad public for funding.
Tip: if you don't see a reply link on the comment you want to reply to try clicking on the time stamp link to the right of the commenters username, the reply comment box should then appear on a new page.
I didn't know it worked that way, that seems.. unintuitive to say the least heh.
Hopefully not $900 Epi Pen profitable, though...
What if they cut your taxes? Then you can spend your money on anything you think might benefit mankind instead.
If the government cuts taxes but at the same time prohibits an activity I can't then use the money I've saved by paying less tax on that banned activity.
For some things it does work. I could spend the money on recreational drugs, for example, because they are available, however I don't personally know any stem cell therapy practitioners, nor any who are prepared to flout the law.
Edit: removed a word because it made a sentence ambiguous
If Balaji Srinivasan is confirmed for the FDA, I'd expect gene therapies and stem cell treatments to become more commonplace. After all, Balaji's first startup dealt with genetic testing.
What is more concerning is that the US might face a brain drain in the coming years, due to the visa ban from so-called "terrorist" states (funny how Saudi Arabia is conspicuously absent from that list...)
Remove the desire for the Chinese, Indian, and Russian engineers to try to study and work here, and you remove the USA's competitive advantage, and you give back all that talent straight to the USA's biggest competitors.
Or to Canada. The US isn't the only western country highly skilled workers emigrate to.
My cyberpunk education would point to the Far East as "the" place for this sort of thing to spring up unregulated.
If Canada/EU/Australia think stem cell and gene therapies are important, along with things like climate science and any other kind of science, and we in the US are failing on these things thanks to our crappy voting, then why can't you guys pick up the slack? Personally, I'm not at all happy about the prospect of what's going to happen to science funding here real soon. But that doesn't excuse all these other advanced economies from doing their part too. The rest of you should be trying to take the lead on these things, if not many more things, esp. when we so obviously screw up.
Paralysis to utility!
Is someone going to tell me something like: oh, the nerve wasn't completely severed so recovery might have happened anyway?
Well, go ahead, but in the meantime I am enjoying this news.
Good news -- pure and simple. :)
Looks like a second group of people is getting treatment with a higher dosage. The results of that will definitely be of interest to many. :)
I haven't pulled the trigger yet, but do plan on banking my own stem cells while I'm in my early 30's because parts of me will inevitably start to break down in the coming decades, and I really like the idea of tapping my own young cells when I am old to heal some of that.
The only company I know of that is doing this is Forever Labs, https://www.foreverlabs.co/, I am not associated with them, I just think they are on the right track with stem-cell banking and have spoken to one of the founders and was pretty excited about what they were doing and think its something worth supporting, which is why I'm writing this comment.
So it's hard to say how wide a range of patients will be treatable with the new technique, but that's what medical research is for: to find out what helps for which patients. I hope further research continues on this and other treatments for spinal cord injuries.
For me the stem cells are some sort of a magical Wolverine regeneration sauce. Never understood why they even work.
The biggest problem is that you'd like a whole tank of stem cells that you could dip some injured person into and have them come out fully repaired, but getting stem cells to multiply without turning into anything in particular is a challenge so we have to cultivate them in very small quantities and it's relatively slow and expensive to do that.
I'll have a pilsener, please.
Essentially, rather than stopping the cells from making "what I want to be when I grow up" decisions, you're taking a grown-up cell and forcing it to forget all the decisions that its predecessors ever made. It's a bit more difficult.
In general, those decisions are recorded on the nuclear DNA by "tagging" it with methyl groups, like customizing a dictionary by using paper clips to bond together the pages that are least frequently accessed. You can look up the words you frequently need much faster, but you lose the ability to look up anything else in the clipped-together pages.
If you take one of those dictionaries, and remove all the paper clips, it's back to being a completely generalist reference, almost just like a new dictionary, that had never been customized in the first place. The most notable difference is that the old dictionary might have accumulated some damage over the years.
Furthermore, there is a differentiation hierarchy. Some cells only make a few decisions. So even if you can't suck fresh stem cells out of embyros or umbilical cords, there is the possibility that you could liposuction some adipose tissue, separate out the least-differentiated cells, and inject them into other tissues. Those cells could possibly repair bone, cartilage, and ligaments. Or you could crack open baby teeth, or suck out bone marrow, and produce different types of cells. With nerve cells, though, you're out of luck, because there's really no reservoir of cells that can be harvested.
So you take some of those liposuctioned fat cells, chemically treat them to remove all the clips from their respective dictionaries, and try to make them switch to nerve cells by attaching new clips to different pages. Those cells will be cells with your own DNA, but it might just be old, damaged DNA that can't make certain proteins correctly any more.
(1) Your body has to create brand new stem cells for your baby, right? Why can't we do this same procedure in the lab?
(2) When stem cells are injected, how much does it matter if it's your own stem cells, a relative's stem cells, or a random person's stem cells?
Our adult cells communicate with their immediate neighbors through some pretty complex chemical signalling, and stem cells are receptive to that. It's one of the reasons stem cells are able to cooperatively develop from one single cell into a complex multi-cellular organism. Each stem cell carries the complete blueprints for a human being, it just needs to access and activate them based on the signals from it's neighbors.
In fact, pregnant mothers have been found to have fetal stem cells in their blood stream, which target areas of injury and are thought to be repairing them, even within the brain.
I in no way intend this to be an argument against embryonic stem cells. I just find it to be extraordinarily interesting and an intriguing avenue for further development.
More info here:
But yeah, they're almost magic, except we understand it. Which is probably why large sectors of the religious public finds them so abhorrent: they take away yet another arrow from the inscrutable Fate they worship, they lift another bit of veil from the mystery of our existence. And it's a shame, because the objective need for strict regulation will be hampered by constant calls for pointless bans.
No, that's completely and totally not it. Folks oppose embryonic stem cell research because they believe both that embryos are human beings and that innocent human beings should not be killed. That's it.
Note that Mr. Bush continued to fund adult stem cell research, and continued to fund research on existing stem cell lines; what he didn't do was continue to fund the destruction of more embryos.
You may disagree with the idea that an embryo is a human being, and you may disagree that innocent human beings should not be killed, but you mayn't be uncharitable to your opponents.
For instance, as an embryo, you start as a single cell, it divides, eventually some of those cells need to start specializing, but until then they all have the potential to be any type.
We really need to wait until the clinical trial publishes its results to know whether or not the treatment works. This person might have recovered naturally without any treatment.
The level of medical awesomeness is off the charts - so many people can now start to hope for not just a better life, but a radically better life.
Article (in Ukrainian) on reputable journal about soldier and private clinic: http://texty.org.ua/pg/article/editorial/read/60482/Klitynna...
Clinic (English site): ttp://www.ilaya.com/tissue-regeneration/
Page at charity fund about project (in English): http://www.peoplesproject.com/en/biotech/
(Not a scam. They are frequently in our local news. Even Bloomberg and Guardian have articles about them: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/24/crowdfund... )
But in this case, the Redditor can't provide scientific proof, because he's a layman. What he can provide is evidence that he couldn't walk, received stem cell treatment, and then could walk.
90% of the top level comments effectively said "No, impossible, there must be some other reason that you can now walk". That is to say, they feel that because there's no evidence that it's possible, it's impossible until scientists prove that it is possible. Well no, that doesn't make sense and it isn't usually how things work. These people's small amount of knowledge of the scientific method has caused them to arrogantly discredit potentially real phenomenon.
What's interesting is that one of the main top level comments which says "wow, I had a feeling this would be possible" is from an actual stem cell researcher.
In fact, given how sketchy the poster of that thread was being (e.g. linking to his non-medical blog when asked for medical details and saying he's too embarrassed to talk about it when asked again), I'd say people were pretty generous.
Engraftment of human nasal olfactory stem cells restores neuroplasticity in mice with hippocampal lesions